|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 27, 2010, 08:31 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: July 31, 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 23
|
Lifestyles of the rich and packin': High-profile celebrities seeking gun permits
J.Lo and her 2-year-old twins can rest easy at night: Daddy is packing heat.
Singer Marc Anthony is one of dozens of celebs, millionaires and high-profile athletes authorized to carry a concealed weapon in the city, records show. And the number of A-listers who have guns is growing. "We have seen an increase in celebs seeking their own permits," said John Skylar Chambers, a lawyer who has helped New Yorkers get gun permits for more than 20 years. [LINK]
__________________
Cavalier Knight |
September 27, 2010, 11:02 PM | #2 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I realize that this may be apparent to the OP, but (humor me), can you state what the legal or civil rights issue is?
|
September 27, 2010, 11:53 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,700
|
The well to do and well connected have always been able to get gun permits in NYC. Conversely under Giuliani many people who had had permits for years-William F. Buckley, Joan Rivers, the publisher of Black Enterprise Magazine suddenly had their permits taken away. I read the number of permits to carry was halved under Giuliani.
|
September 28, 2010, 12:27 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I obviously don't speak for the OP, but if celebs or the rich are given preferential treatment with regard to their ability to exercise their 2nd amendment right to self defense, then we clearly have a civil rights issue; an equal protection issue, and a problem that the issuance is likely arbitrary and capricious.
|
September 28, 2010, 05:37 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
|
What bothers me more is that this is public knowledge....
I don't think it is anybodies business.
How would you like it if the local media published that you carried? Personally I don't mind if folks know that I carry but I can see how each person has a right to their privacy and a right to choose on this. Gun laws have always been about money and power... not about crime... this is so obvious that I'm amazed at how many normal people are snowed over by this. |
September 28, 2010, 07:02 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 12,463
|
Quote:
To Al's point, I'm not sure where the thread will actually go however without any facts to back it up. I can state that I don't believe that the media should be able to publish who has a CCW permit regardless of their status as Blume 357 pointed out.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson |
|
September 28, 2010, 09:25 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
There was a story that the devils of Wall Street - Lehman; Goldman, Sachs applied for permits as they feared an American version of the Terror afte the populist revolution caused by their financial shennigans.
I would have liked to see Wall Street protected by Ruger 380s and combat yuppie Masters of the Universe. Is this a civil rights issue? Well, do rich people have the differential right to be protected from the proletariat? Le Guillotine !
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
September 28, 2010, 09:32 AM | #8 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This is why we have imposed the "No Drive-By" rule.
Without something more, in what direction does this thread go? The OP gives us no real direction. If there is one (hidden in the opening text), is it political? Legal? Civil Rights? There are some good comments already. But what was the purpose of the OP? All we can do, at the moment, is guess at Mr Reynolds meaning. |
September 28, 2010, 09:43 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Not sure where the OP was going with this...
... but I would have thought it would have gone along one of two lines:
1) Inequality of protection under the law; or 2) Hypocrisy of the Hollywood (etc) elite, who are generally in favor of strict gun control, except when it affects them. Interesting interview I saw last year (or maybe it was in 2008?) - Bill O'Reilly interviewing Rosie O'Donnell, and the topics of guns came up. Rosie conceded to Bill that she, and very likely other anti-gun celebrities, employed bodyguards who very likely were armed with handguns. O'Donnell conceded to O'Reilly that perhaps individuals who can't afford private security might have a real interest in being able to own handguns for personal protection. She's still anti-gun, but apparently less violently. |
September 28, 2010, 11:16 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
|
See, even with Rosie there is a spark of hope....
If we look close enough we will always find the hypocrisy....
In my state of S.C. as long as you are not a convicted felon or your spouse has not claimed you struck them or you have not had too many speeding tickets... and the list grows... then it is pretty easy to get a concealed weapons permit... just takes a day of class, which you have to pay $50-$100 for... 50-100 rounds of ammo, another $50 to the state and a wait of 3 months.... so simple... unless you are a working stiff trying to make ends meet and have very little time for anything other than work and family... Most poor people can't manage all this...... Of course Rich Celebs can get things that common folks have to really struggle for .... they have the ways (lawyers and politicians) and means (money) to do it. |
September 28, 2010, 11:27 AM | #11 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: N. Central Florida
Posts: 8,518
|
Quote:
If they have the means, why shouldn't they? If you had the means to to do things better and differently, wouldn't you? Now, is it OK for them to get those permits and you are not able to because you aren't one of them? That's a different thing altogether. |
|
September 28, 2010, 11:29 AM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Al, isn't there a case on such in CA now? IMHO I have always thought May Issue CCW creates a Moral Hazard for CLEOs.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
September 29, 2010, 01:24 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
I have a theory.
I think many celebs have been packing all along. They are just going legal now. As a celeb some personalities think the laws don't apply to them. After Plaxico Buress (among others) was fired and sent to prison it served a little wake up call. Since there is now an option to follow the law they are sucking down their hypocrisy and going legal. Not all are hypocrites either. Angelina Jolie for example has no problem telling it how it is. Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
|
September 29, 2010, 07:13 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
|
What I was implying was that even 'shall issue' permits
discriminate against the poor and less fortunate.
|
September 29, 2010, 07:54 AM | #15 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
... As I stated earlier: This is why we close drive-by threads.
|
|
|